Posted on 04/19/2015 6:33:32 PM PDT by cotton1706
On Friday, the New York Times stated, in a blaring headline, that my support for Second Amendment rights is “strange.”
In particular, the writer took issue with my statement that “”the Second Amendment to the Constitution isn’t for just protecting hunting rights, and it’s not only to safeguard your right to target practice. It is a constitutional right to protect your children, your family, your home, our lives, and to serve as the ultimate check against governmental tyranny — for the protection of liberty.”
In addition to “strange,” the NYT described this view as “ridiculous,” “silly,” and “absurd” (methinks the Old Gray Lady doth protest too much).
The writer, the lead editor for the Times’ editorial page, continued, “I just don’t get the argument on constitutional or historical grounds.”
Perhaps this will help. Let’s survey some other “silly” people who have embraced this heretical understanding of our liberties.
Thomas Jefferson:
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. . . ."
Alexander Hamilton:
"But if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights. . . ."
Noah Webster:
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
He takes on the New York Times and their willful ignorance on April 19th - the very day, 240 years ago, that ordinary Americans took to their guns to defend themselves against a tyrannical government.
Is the Times aware of ANYTHING that happened in the American colonies between 1763 and 1775?? Or does history for them begin in 1932 with Franklin Roosevelt (with some study of slavery and the slaughter of the Indians of course, so they can criticize America)?
They just don't like it.
Bingo!
“Oh, they get it all right. “
Yessiree, and they want to belittle the concept before anyone else gets it too.
The New York Times has been an enemy of freedom, God, and all that is right ever since its inception. If Satan founded a newspaper, it would be the New York Times.
I think the NYT’s reaction to Mr. Cruz is strange, ridiculous, silly, and absurd. Mr. Cruz gets it. He obviously understands a heck of a lot more about our representative republic than the flunky at the NYT. Though as others here have pointed out, I’m pretty sure the NYT understands the true purpose of the 2nd Amendment, they just don’t like it and thus want to water it down or even eliminate it. Fascist dogs.
There. Fixed it.
Bookmark.
There used to be six million Jews that they could have surveyed.
Cruz>Reagan
Red Cruz - Allen West
Whoa! That was a potent comment!
Ditto.
They get it all too well.
Ted Cruz - Allen West
Dang, my eyes are getting bad. Can’t see my own typos...
I stand with Ted
#1 the NYT is there to protect the LIE
#2 to the NYT, a palladium as referenced by Justice Joseph Storey (now a dormitory) was a cocaine infused night club/music venue where both the Ramon’s and Frank Zappa (hugh fan) recorded live albums in the 70s. (opened by the owners of studio 54, so it was a big f’n deal)
Theodore Cruz strikes back with facts, but it is a race to get ahead of the lies, and I’ll guarantee you no Times reader heard what Mr. Cruz had to say.
There used to be 11.5 million people that they could have surveyed ...
These NYT writers were educated in a system which became the precursor to Common Core. This is why we should go easy on them when they trap themselves with their own ignorance, or when a given editor blows a few billion brain cells simply by trying to think.
Cruz is able to be respectful and polite as he teaches them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
